People vs. Macaspac, G.R. No.

198954, February 22, 2017

Facts:

At around 8:00 in the evening of July 7, 1988, Macaspac along with four other persons including one
Robert Jebulan. In the course of their drinking spree, an argument ensued between Macaspac and
Jebulan. It became so heated that, Macaspac uttered to the group: “Hintayin nyo ako d’yan, wawalisin ko
kayo, “and then left. After around three minutes, Macaspac returned wielding a knife. He confronted and
taunted Jubulan, saying, “Ano?”. Jebulan simply replied, “Tama na”. At that point, Macaspac suddenly
stabbed Jebulan on the lower right area of his chest and ran away. The others witnessed the stabbing of
Jebulan. He was rushed to the hospital but was rushed dead on arrival.

Macaspac initially invoked self-defense, testifying that he and Jebulan had scuffed for the possession of
the knife, and that he had then stabbed Jebulan once he seized control of the knife. However, he later on
claimed that Jebulan had been stabbed by accident when he fell on the knife. He denied being the person
with whom Jebulan had the argument, which he insisted had been between Barcomo and one Danny.
According to him, he tried to pacify their argument, but his efforts angered Jebulan, who draw out the
knife and tried to stab him. He fortunately evaded the stab thrust of Jebulan, whom he struck with a
wooden chair to defend himself. The blow caused Jebulan to fall on the knife, puncturing his chest.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in finding Macaspac guilty for murder

Ruling:

No. According to the facts, he did not mount the attack with surprise because the heated argument
between him and the victim and his angry threat of going back “to sweep them” had sufficiently
forewarned the latter of the impending lethal assault. The requisites for the appreciation of evident
premeditation are: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly
indicating that the accused had clung to his determination to commit the crime; and, the lapse of a
sufficient length of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act.

The first and second requisites were established. But it is the essence of this circumstance that the
execution of the criminal act be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolve to carry out the
criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. By quickly returning to the
group with a knife, he let no appreciable time pass to allow him to reflect upon his resolve to carry out his
criminal intent. It was as if the execution immediately followed the resolve to commit a crime. As such,
the third requisite was absent.